UNIT 4 | A WORLD OF REGIONS

Global Stratification

Preface

Across history, there have been many manifestations of stratification in different societies.
Social stratification is essentially the phenomenon of segregating, grouping, and ranking people
based on differences in class, race, economic status, and other categories. In earlier
civilizations, we hear of nobilities and commoners, the lord and the peasant, and many other
social statuses and positions that embody hierarchy of power in a social system. These
hierarchies, especially when pushed toward the extremes, have often led to inequalities,
wherein the group which possesses control over power and resources are given much privilege
at the expense of those who are deprived.

This is problematic because, in principle, humans, with our intrinsic dignity and consequential
rights to live and prosper, should also have equitable access to resources—both material and
non-material. Unfortunately, in the contemporary world, these hierarchies remain to exist, albeit,
in different forms.

Perspectives in Global Stratification

There are various theories which attempt to explain the dynamics and impacts of stratification
among people in the world, especially in the context of their power to tap on resources and
maximize these toward development and toward having a better quality of life.

One of the theories attempting to explain pathways of development is modernization theory. In a

nutshell, this theory suggests that all societies undergo a similar process of evolution-from
agricultural, industrial, and urbanized and modern-that is motivated and catalyzed by internal
factors. It hints that more than external influences, internal processes within states are
responsible for social change.

For instance, it opines that a well-functioning bureaucracy that will ensure welfare among
citizens is a necessary infrastructure to achieve development. It also assumes that when these
internal sources of development-e.g., education, market-driven economy, and political
infrastructures-are present, any society will progress (Ynalvez & Shrum, 2015) and poverty will
be resolved.

However, it can be observed even today that there are countries very rich in natural resources,
but their people remain to experience extreme poverty. Amidst the affordances in scientific and
technological advancements that are circulated around the globe, we can see that some
countries remain disadvantaged in terms of digital technology transfer that they are still left
behind economically.

Based primarily on the works of Raul Prebisch and Hans Singer (thus, Prebish- Singer
hypothesis), the dependency theories suggest that countries are either "core" (1.e., developed)
or "peripheral" (i.e., developing) such that resources tend to flow from peripheries to the core.
A related theory discussed in earlier lessons is that of Wallerstein (1975), speaking about a
world system composed of boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation, and
coherence. This world system is assumed to "comprise a single capitalist world-economy" (Graf,
1980, p.29) so to speak.

Global Divides

In the contemporary world, the buzz word used to pertain to these stratifications among nations
is the term global divide. But, in the modern world, how did we reach this point?

First, Second, and Third Worlds

After World War ll, the United States and the Soviet Union, which were wartime allies, entered a
Cold War-a state of political tension and rivalry, from the mid-1940s to early 1990s. Several
contemporary works have reviewed this event in the light of post-war events. These include the
writings of Gaddis (2005), Zubok (2007), Westad (2017), among others.

In a nutshell, the Cold War came forth due to political doubts among wartime allies. For
instance, the United States has always been wary of the Soviet Union's communist leanings,
and it has stated its position to contain the latter's expansion. The Cold War yielded two chief
political factions: the Western Bloc, comprised by the industrial/capitalist US and the North
Atlantic Alliance (NATO), which include United Kingdom, Canada, France, Italy among others;
and the Eastern Bloc (Albania, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and
Afghanistan), led by the communist/socialist Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The
Western Bloc has been referred to as First World countries, while the Eastern Bloc has been
referred to as Second World countries.

In 1952, Alfred Sauvy, in his article Trois Mondes, Une Planète (Three Worlds, One Planet) at
the L'Observateur, said: "Car enfince Tiers Monde ignoré, exploité, méprisé comme le Tiers
Etat, veut, lui aussi, être quelque chose" (in the end, The Third World, ignored, exploited, and
misunderstood just like the Third Estates desires to be something). In this article, Sauvy (1952)
likened the Third World to the Third Estates-the French commoners-whose suffering and
upheaval led to the French revolution.

In 1974, Teng Hsiao-Ping, vice-premier of the People's Republic of China 1977, spoke to the
United Nations General Assembly. In this talk, Teng (1974) profoundly noted the distinction
among Three Worlds: "The United States and the Soviet Union make up the First World. The
developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and other regions make up the Third World.
The developed Countries between the two make up the Second World."

The Brandt Report and Its Criticism

In the 1980s, a comprehensive analysis of global economy was reported by the Independent
Commission on International Development Issues. The commission was led by Willy Brandt,
West German chancellor. This analysis was encapsulated in what is popularly known as the
Brandt Report.

Briefly, this report categorized countries in the northern hemisphere as comparatively smaller in
population and more economically affluent than countries in the southern hemisphere-a
categorization that gave birth to the Brandt line-an imaginary line that divides the world into the
developed north and the developing south.

The bottom line of this report was the contention on mutuality-that for both the northern and
southern countries to thrive, global economy must be restructured, for instance by transferring
resources to southern economies, thus ending poverty. In the early 2000s, another report, The
Brandt Equation, was prepared by James Bernard Quilligan, describing the new global economy
as facing "financial contagion," and requiring "major international relief program" (Quilligan,
2010).

Daniel Sneider (1980), in a special report in EIR News Service Inc., summarized the contentions
of the Brandt Report:

¨  “one world economic system" that governs even countries' taxation of certain items

¨  “zero growth and Malthusianism", which suggests that controlling overpopulation will cure
underdevelopment

¨  “basic needs and appropriate technology", focusing on labor than technology

¨  “promotion of solar energy"

¨  “strengthen the IMF/World Bank system"

The Brandt Report had critiques, which was a healthy process for a report that tackled such a
monumental issue as global economic affairs. William D. Graf, a political and foreign affairs
expert at that time wrote a comprehensive critique in The Socialist Register (1981). First, he
pointed out that while the Brandt commission is seemingly represented by northern and
southern countries, it is not represented according to "classes" within these countries, because
most of the representatives are coming from political elites.

Graf also noted that the Brandt Report's recommendations are not totally new as there are
already proposals in the past with similar recommendations. He likewise opined that the Brandt
Report "is compelled by its raison d'être to exclude historical dimensions from its platform"
(p.29), which means that it did not put emphasis on the antecedents on why in the first place the
North and the South arrived to have such kind of dynamics.

For Graf (1980), a proposal for a global economic reform should: (1) look at the "historical
evolution of the world order"; (2) examine "global relations including "class relations"; (3) "define
goals and objectives"; and (4) "specify strategy and tactic," things that are seemingly absent or
not so clearly defined in the Brandt Report.
The Global South

"The global south, therefore, continues to be imagined and re-imagined by those who dominate
it even as movements from below reshape these constructions through resistance."

~ Lisandro Claudio, "Locating the Global South"

Preface

In earlier lessons, we discussed that the changing global landscape has made disparities in
various spheres more defined-a phenomenon which creates a paradox in a world where
geographical and intellectual access have been made more possible by the advancement in
technology.

In the past, it would have been grueling for explorers to visit various places in the world as they
were limited only by the transportation technologies they had. The aviation technology has
made it possible for humans to be more connected, at least in principle, as it speeds up transfer
from one country to other. The Internet technology on the other hand has brought forth
undefeatable access to information, which the world has not seen in the distant past. This
should have, in principle, leveled off the disparities across countries.

But then again, this is not always the case. While the contemporary world is arguably much
better and more affluent than what we have in the past, more complex phenomena are
emerging in this seemingly connected world.

Defining Global North and Global South

The rise and evolution of a capitalist society have created disparities in various spheres of life-
social, political, cultural, and economic. These disparities have defined gaps between and
among nations that are less geographical and more socioeconomic in nature.

In literatures on globalization and development, the term Global North is used to refer to
countries that are economically developed, while the term Global South is used to pertain to
countries that are economically struggling (Odeh, 2010). While the common frame of reference
in such stratification is economic, there are broad indicators that distinguish economies as either
global north or global south: "politics, technology, wealth, and demography" (Odeh, 2010, p.
340).

The Global South

But what really is Global South? Where is it? Is it a place? Is it a state of being? In his article,
"Locating the Global South," Claudio (2014) discussed the nuances of construing the Global
South. He suggests that "there is no uniform global south" as the concept is construed both
objectively and subjectively, and thus begging for "academic analysis" to articulate it. His vivid
examples on how we might see and experience globalization in our daily lives, from the lens of
diverging opinions about globalization, emphasized how "globalization creates both affluence
and poverty" and how "poverty is also being globalized".
Claudio (2014) argued that, amidst these complex views on globalization, looking at state and
interstate inequalities is essential in understanding the global south. He provided three
contentions:

1. Decolonization process produces states.

2. Problems of globalization can be discussed and solved at the state level.
3. Transnational phenomena are arguably outcomes of state politics.

He, however, forewarned that some might object against his frameworks for the following
reasons, which he also discussed in detail:

1. Some inequalities cannot be explained by state politics.

2. Not all colonial territories are states.
3. Globalization challenges "geographically bound conceptions of poverty and inequality".

The Rise of The Global South: The Latin America Experience

Many of the countries in the world are referred to as countries in the Global South. Among the
countries commonly associated with the term are the countries in Latin America (Dados &
Connel, 2012).

Latin America can be construed geographically as a group of countries in South America which
share the same language and culture. These socio-cultural characteristics are linked with their
common colonizers, Portugal and Spain. Historically, countries in this part of the world have
manifested a colorful political scene, characterized by massive and forceful resistance from the
grassroots. Across time as well, countries in the Latin Americas have been plagued by poverty
and economic instability.

Sawe (2018) noted that Latin America comprises 13 percent of the earth's land surface area.
The following are some of the major countries, which are generally cordial with one another.

Economic Conditions in The Latin Americas

There are two major trade organizations in the Latin Americas, Pacific Alliance and Mercosur. In
2016, Morgan Stanley economists articulated that Latin America plays a role in the accelerating
global economy in the following year. Brazil and Argentina managed to stand up from economic
turmoil. This is despite Mexico facing difficulties due to the conflict with US' policy at that time.
Economists highlighted that politics and policy choices remain significant in determining
economic growth in the area.
Asian Regionalism

"There is no single Asian idea of regionalism."

-Baogang He & Takashi Inoguchi, "Introduction to ldeas of Asian Regionalism"

Preface

Amidst globalization, another phenomenon is becoming more apparent: regionalism. Tanaka

and Inoguchi (1996), in a compilation of papers presented at the United Nations University,
articulated that the post-Cold War era is characterized by unique dynamics in international
relations.

First, countries tend to rely on global forums such as the United Nations in resolving regional
conflicts, thus, paving way for the emergence of peacekeeping initiatives and regional trade
organizations. In general, nations nowadays are more agreeable, at least as indicated by less
profound armed conflicts and wars among nations. Conflicts are however present in other
spheres, such as for instance, territorial disputes which have implication on assertion of political
powers in a given region or which will provide competitive advantage in economic opportunities.
In the earlier years of human history, these misunderstandings or conflict of interest could have
been resolved outright by bloody and massive wars. But now, nations are utilizing their
diplomatic prowess to mitigate the possibility of catastrophic ends.

Second is the emergence of regional cooperation among countries to achieve political and
economic goals. Hernandez (1996) even suggested that such flexibility and fluidity in
regionalism is consequential to the end of the Cold War. As we can see nowadays, Countries
are becoming more open to collaborate with other countries in terms of economic development,
in particular, and human development, in general.

Another trend is nations' commitment to their cultural identities. According to Huntington (1996),
one of the consequences of the post-Cold War affairs is the shift of power from the West to
groups of nations with similar cultural identity.

Huntington referred to these nations as "civilizations"-a proposition foundational to his "clash of

civilization" hypothesis. Apparently; nations are becoming more committed to other nations
which cultural identity they share. Idrees M (2017), in an article on the South Asian Association
for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), noted that regionalism may be a manifestation of a "space
for regional arrangement" amidst an overburdened world system. Idrees M continued by
pointing out that after the Second World War, global trends have emerged which show why
regionalism is a necessary phenomenon. First, amidst globalization, global problems remained
to be tackled in regional spheres. Second, the collapse of the alliances has led to regionalism
and trans-regionalism trends. Third, regionalism is an attempt for resilience in a world which
remains to acknowledge superpower tendencies among particular states such as America.
Fourth and lastly, growing insecurity within particular regions require solutions from within these
regions, something which is made complicated by global dynamics.

In these articulations, we can see that regionalism is apparently another response to the ever-
growing needs and complexities of globalization.
Hettne's Faces of Regionalism and Degrees of Regionness

Hettne (1996) argued that regionalism has two faces: the old and the new. The following table
summarizes Hettne's articulation:

Furthermore, Hettne (1996) suggested that regionness as a concept has varying degrees.

Region as a geographical unit - A region can be construed as a place, as a physical

environment. For example, we can determine Asia as a region based on the land and water
boundaries surrounding it.

Region as a social system - A region can be construed as a conglomerate of people occupying

a particular space and possessing unique dynamics of interaction. For instance, we can
determine Asia as a region based on the group of people occupying it and the shared ancestry,
language, and culture these people have.

Region as organized cooperation - A region can be construed as a group of nations who agree
to take part and form a formal organization. For instance, Southeast Asia is a region within Asia,
and it has been formalized through memberships in the Association of South East Asian Nations
or ASEAN.

Region as civil society – A region can be construed as a network of cultural and social linkages
among countries who voluntarily take part in a cooperation among nations.

Region as an acting subject - A region can be construed as a group of nations concerned about
peace, welfare, and prosperity of its people.

Asian Regionalism

There are many regions in the world where regionalism can be observed. Asia is among these
regions where regional cooperation is emergent and becoming more influential. Hernandez
(1996) mentioned specific trends which probably necessitate regional cooperation in the Asia
Pacific regions. Security challenges, ecological breakdown, demands for human resources,
labor migration, international terrorism, epidemics, and drug trafficking are just among the
issues faced in this part of the world-phenomena which demands multilateral response.

Asia is the largest and most populated continent in the world. Geographically it is separated
from the European continent by the Urals, from Africa by the Suez Canal, from the North
America by the Bering Strait (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2012). It is comprised of
distinct regions such as Central Asia, East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle
East.

Asia has been the cradle of several ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese and Indian
civilizations. It has also been the home of influential cultural, philosophical, and religious
movements. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, and other oriental
philosophies and religions generally originated from an Asian country and have been
proliferated around the globe.

In the contemporary world, Asia has become an economic force characterized by reduced
poverty and fast pace economic development (Asian Development Bank, 2008).

Dynamics of Asian Regionalism

"Asia learned the hard way in 1998 that the absence of regional cooperation can cost an
economic misfortune."

~Sri Mulyanilndrawati (Minister of Finance, Republic of Indonesia)

"Emerging Asian Regionalism: A Partnership for Shared Responsibility"

In 2008, the Asian Development Bank published a book on the emerging regionalism in Asia.
Haruhiko Kuroda, then president of ADB, in the Foreword of this manuscript, articulated that
integration is contributory to the economic development experienced by Asian countries then.
Kuroda identified some factors which are influential in the growing integration at that time:

1. Enhanced dialogue between citizens of various nations - This is facilitated by growing

tourism activities in the regions and the consistent multilateral meetings among leaders
of nation-states.
2. Expanding intraregional trade and investments - This brings forth closer financial
markets and interdependent economies.
3. Increased connectivity - This is facilitated by regional infrastructure projects as well as
collaboration in delivering public goods.

Furthermore, Kuroda noted that the "market-friendly, multi-track, and multispeed" approach of
the Asian integration is beneficial for the Asian region because of the following reasons:

1. Members can integrate based on their capacity vis-à-vis the available opportunities.
2. It opens up for collaboration and merging of smaller groups.
3. It is responsive to business and open markets.

There are various benefits perceived from the Asian integration. Some of those discussed by
ADB (2008) are as follows:
 1. It harnesses the strengths of diverse economies.
2. It provides platform for connecting financial markets (reduced capital, shared risks).
3. It makes the economy more resilient to global risks.
4. It pools resources.
5. It creates regional mechanisms for safety and security.

However, there are also challenges (ADB, 2008):

1. The need to establish compatible product standards

2. The need to establish guidelines that buffer financial contagion and ensure compatible
financial regulations
3. The need to coordinate macroeconomic policies
4. The need to manage cross-border environmental and social policies (e.g., fair treatment
of migrant workers)

Amitav Acharya (2010), a professor of International Relations, pointed out several criticisms that
people who are skeptical to Asian regional institutions have. Skeptics think that these
institutions have neither truly contributed in resolving conflicts and disputes (e.g., People's
Republic of China-Taiwan, SoKor/NoKor, and India-Pakistan conflicts) nor have used available
mechanisms to resolve conflict, instead, relying on International Court of Justice. Likewise,
skeptics observe that these institutions have failed to successfully establish trust-building within
the region, manifested in arms acquisition and increasing naval operations. Furthermore, there
are no humanitarian mechanisms despite the fact the region is relatively at risk to calamities.

Amidst challenges and criticisms, cooperation in the Asian region remain to exist, in principle, to
serve the goals of its members. These cooperation are as follows:

1. APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation)

2. EAS (East Asian Summit)
3. APC (Asia Pacific community)
4. 4)    EAC (East Asian Community)
5. ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)
6. APT (ASEAN Plus Three)

The ASEAN Integration

"The fragmented economies of Southeast Asia," he said, "(with) each country pursuing its own
limited objectives and dissipating its meager resources in the overlapping or even conflicting
endeavors of sister states carry the seeds of weakness in their incapacity for growth and their
self-perpetuating dependence on the advanced, industrial nations. ASEAN, therefore, could
marshal the still untapped potentials of this rich region through more substantial united action."

~Narciso Ramon, former Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs and one of the five founding
fathers of ASEAN

Preface
When discussing about Asian regionalism, one cannot veer away from discussing the evolution
and dynamics of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In the early 1960s, there
was already an emerging organization among Philippines, Thailand, and the Republic of Malaya
in what was called the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA). It was established in July 31, 1961
by Thanat Khoman (Thailand), Felixberto Serrano (Philippines), and Tunku Abdui Raman
(Malaya). While the articulated goal of this regionalism process was cultural and economic
cooperation, there were also political goals gleaned. Some challenges were encountered from
its inception such as lack of confidence from other Southeast Asian nations, presumed political
goals, and the dissent from other states because of their alignment with the Western Bloc
(Pollard, 1970).

In 1963, another confederation was formed, convened by then President Diosdado Macapagal.
This was referred to as MAPHILINDO (Great Malayan Confederation), involving Malaysia,
Philippines, and Indonesia, which aimed to unite "nations of Malay origins." This did not last
very long and was terminated by Indonesia-Malaysia Konfrontasi-the former's policy arguing
against the formation of the Federation of Malaysia (Weatherbee et al., 2005).

The ASEAN

Was ASEAN a necessary trajectory to take among Southeast Asian nations? Thanat Khoman
(1992), one of the founding fathers, articulated why SEA needed an organization for
cooperation. First, the cooperation will repel new colonial powers from stepping in after old
colonizers withdrew. Second, it is strategic to work with neighbors, with shared interest and
identity than with allies from distant lands (e.g, SEATO). Third, harnessing the strengths of
member states wll provide an advantage in dealing with bigger powers in potential conflicts.
Most importantly, cooperation and integration enable achievement of goals which could be not
accomplished alone.

S. Rajaratnam (1992) profoundly described what sets ASEAN apart from its Asian counterparts.
He said:

To compare ASEAN with the so-called Little Dragons of Asia is to compare unrelated political
species. The Little Dragons are lone wolves hunting separately. They lack collective strength or
awareness. With them it is a case of each wolf for itself. In the case of ASEAN, as integration
proceeds, its strength will be the cohesiveness of over 300 million people with far greater
resources than any of the lone baby dragons.

The Little Dragons of Asia he was referring here were the economies of Hong Kong, Singapore,
South Korea, and Taiwan, which, at that time, was experiencing fast-paced industrialization and
economic growth.

The principles of the ASEAN are enshrined in the ASEAN Declaration (1967), also referred to
as Bangkok Declaration. The opening section of the Declaration provided a situationer of SEA'S
geopolitical and economic affairs at that time:

 Existence of shared problems and interests

 Need for unity and cooperation
 Shared aspirations and ideals ("peace, progress, and prosperity)
 Shared responsibility for "economic and social responsibility"
  Presence of foreign bases as temporary and with "concurrence from countries
concerned"

The following section contains the declarations, as follows:

 Establishment of ASEAN
 An articulation of the aims and purpose of ASEAN
 A list of strategies and mechanisms to enable the achievement of the goals
 A statement of openness for membership
 An articulation of ASEAN as a collective representation of member states

The ASEAN+3 Cooperation

In 1997, a summit was held in Malaysia among member states of the ASEAN and three other
countries-China, Japan, and South Korea-as a necessary dialogue due to the financial turmoil at
that time (Yang Yi, 2017). This led to a formalized cooperation-ASEAN +3-through a joint
statement issues in 1999 during the 3rd ASEAN +3 summit held in Manila. In nutshell, the
commitments in this cooperation focus on issues on energy, transport, and technology.

ASEAN Integration

ASEAN integration has become a buzzword in recent years, propelling conversations among
experts in various disciplines, and perhaps, eliciting questions among the general public. What
really is integration and what is ASEAN integration?

In simpler terms, we can look at integration as a pathway toward unification in various spheres-
political, economic, and social. Some theorists suggest that integration is made possible by
certain conditions such as increased level of social interaction (Deutsch, 1953) and shared
ideological patterns amidst a diverse society experiencing fast-paced economic growth (Haas,
1964).

In the case of the ASEAN, we can arguably trace back integration to its establishment in the
1960s although more formally in the conceptualization of the ASEAN Vision 2020 in 1997. In
this meeting, leaders reaffirmed their commitment to Bangkok Declaration (1967) and re-
articulated the aspirations of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration (1971). It is also where they called
for a more consolidated effort to forge an ASEAN Community.

A milestone in the journey toward ASEAN integration was the development and adoption of the
ASEAN Economic Blueprint (ASEAN Secretariat, 2008) to advance the vision of an ASEAN
Economic Community (AEC). The AEC has the following characteristics (ASEAN Economic
Blueprint, 2008):

 Single market and production (free flow of goods, services, investment, capital, and
skilled labor; prioritizing food, agriculture, and forestry as integration sectors)
 Competitive economic region (introduction of fair competition policy, consumer
protection, intellectual property rights, infrastructure development, taxation, and e-
commerce)
 Equitable economic outcomes (developing small and medium enterprises, Initiative for
ASEAN integration)
  Integration into the global economy (maintaining ASEAN centrality, participation in global
supply networks)

ASEAN CONNECTIVITY MASTER PLAN 2025

1. Sustainable Infrastructure
Increase public and private infrastructure investment in each ASEAN Member State, as needed
▪ Significantly enhance the evaluation and sharing of best practices on infrastructure productivity
in ASEAN
▪ Increase the deployment of smart urbanisation models across ASEAN 1. Establish a rolling
priority pipeline list of potential ASEAN infrastructure projects and sources of funds
2.Establish an ASEAN platform to measure and improve infrastructure productivity
3. Develop sustainable urbanisation strategies in ASEAN cities
2. Digital Innovation
Support the adoption of technology by micro, small and medium
enterprises (MSMEs)
▪ Support financial access through digital technologies
▪ Improve open data use in ASEAN Member States
▪ Support enhanced data management in ASEAN Member States
1. Enhance the MSME technology platform Develop the ASEAN digital financial
inclusion framework
2. Establish an ASEAN open data network
3. Establish an ASEAN digital data governance framework
3. Seamless Logistics
▪ Lower supply chain costs in each ASEAN Member State
▪ Improve speed and reliability of supply chains in each ASEAN Member State
1. Strengthen ASEAN competitiveness through enhanced trade routes and logistics
2. Enhance supply chain efficiency through addressing key chokepoints
4.  Regulatory Excellence
▪ Harmonise or mutually recognise standards, conformance, and technical regulations for
products in key sectors
▪ Reduce number of tradedistorting non-tariff measures across ASEAN Member States
1. Complete harmonisation of standards, mutual recognition, and technical regulations in
three prioritised product groupings
2. Increase transparency and strengthen evaluation to reduce trade distorting non-tariff
measures
5. People Mobility
▪ Support ease of travel throughout ASEAN
▪ Reduce the gaps between vocational skills demand and supply across ASEAN
▪ Increase the number of intra-ASEAN international students
1. Enhance ASEAN travel by making finding information easier
2. Ease ASEAN travel by facilitating visa processes
3. Establish new vocational training programmes and common qualifications across
ASEAN Member States, in accordance with national circumstances of each ASEAN Member
State
4. Support higher education exchange across ASEAN Member States